Subscribe to this blog

Follow by Email

A poster on Reddit gave reasons for his atheism

After a three-month layoff, I decided to do a report about something that I shared recently with Joe. I don’t think that I will be doing these bi-weekly anymore, but from time to time, I will do a report (on a Tuesday) sharing interesting things that I find.

A week ago on Reddit, there was a list from this atheist sharing the reasons for their atheism. They decided to take it down, but he also posted it on another site (with a long discussion thread):

His username on this site is Trading, and his phrase is “Nothing like healthy skepticism and hard evidence”. That’s what they all say.

Here are some excerpts:

There is no use to invent a helping imaginary “friend” who will offer you immortality.

Hold on. It gets better (lol).

It’s absurd to ruin your life (a lucky but tiny oasis that exists between two almost infinite deserts of nothingness) by following absurd or immoral rules invented by primitive people of the Bronze Age which have no relation whatsoever with the happiness of other people.

After this, he discusses his eleven main points, and then he rambles on about how religions have negative social consequences.

It's sad to see ignorance like this continually pop up online, but maybe a reason for it is what JP was alluding to the other day with these feel good-type book stores putting out spiritual junk food. You put garbage in, you get garbage out.

It's a rather hard piece of writing to address, just because the author seems to trade in argument by assertion - he/she doesn't support any of the 11 points with logical arguments or facts, but just states them. Mind you, given that, it seems a little peculiar to then write a blog post on it!

e/she doesn't support any of the 11 points with logical arguments or facts, but just states them.

And this is different from religious arguments ... how?

because his arguments are ot supported and ours our, you have not ever answered one of them. You can say the studies I cite don't say Gd exists but you have never answered a single argumnet i make connecting their findings to my conclusions, that tells me you cant reason, all you do is regurgitate,so your little quip is not meaningful.

God cannot be contingent and still be God because the concept God is the necessary aspect of being.

because God is necessary and not contingent he is either necessary or impossible. Meaning he either must exist or can't possibly exist. Given that choice you must show why he is not possible.

this is why the atheist saying there's no support for a God argument is a meaningless statement. It doesn't matter how good the argument or how strongly it's supported, I have 7000 good reasons to assume miracles happen but because he could find fault with one of them it;s nothing, there are no examples.

the OA is not defining God into existence, they turn out, aklalkakakalallalla No listening,knot e er going to learn the answer.

Most atheists do not think. most atheists are regurgitating the echo chamber. Here's a little secret, most of those Secular outpost guys agree.

I am not sure that the Secular Outpost is a great source. A year ago, your buddy (Papalinton) posted a link from there on your site about the Jesus Myth, and someone in the comments tore that author apart. I shared that with Papa, and he said that I was doozy for religious woozy or something. Not very good.

I am not sure that the Secular Outpost is a great source. A year ago, your buddy (Papalinton) posted a link from there on your site about the Jesus Myth, and someone in the comments tore that author apart. I shared that with Papa, and he said that I was doozy for religious woozy or something. Not very good.

I don't consider most of the posters om that site to be representative of the blog. I think of the blog authors as representing the blog.It is Lowder's blog I dom't claim to speak for him but I get the impression he's not real pleased with most of the posters.the actual blog authors have treated me better than the Christians on dangerous idea have,except for Repert himself.

Joe, are there a lot of conservatives on DI? I was asking because there is another conservative (Crude) that used to post on Vic's site (maybe he still does. Skeppy and Papa's tactics were exposed by him on DI and Feser's blog). He isn't a big fan of Liberal Christians:

crude is a small-minded alt-right Trump-loving bigot. Whatever he has "exposed" about me is a reflection of his own extremely narrow and biased thought processes. It doesn't harm me in any way to be seen as opposing that guy.

JBsptfn said...Joe, are there a lot of conservatives on DI? I was asking because there is another conservative (Crude) that used to post on Vic's site (maybe he still does. Skeppy and Papa's tactics were exposed by him on DI and Feser's blog). He isn't a big fan of Liberal Christians:

I've seen him there, yes there are a lot of conservatives, but he;s not the worst.real liberal theology types don't care about apologetic

Popular posts from this blog

As we approach Martin Luther King Jr. Day, I have been thinking about U2’s song Pride (In the Name of Love) (hereinafter, "Pride"). The song, of course, concerns MLKJr. (According to U2 Sermons, U2 formerly ran a video of MLKJr giving his “I have been to the mountaintop” speech during the playing of the song.) However, the lyrics of Pride are quite apparently not exclusively about MLKJr.

A couple of months ago, I wrote a post about the Gospel of Matthew’s account of the slaughter of the innocents. Therein, I argued that some of the skepticism about the account was unjustified. One argument I made was that the number of children killed in Bethlehem would likely have been no more than 20. Though obviously an act of great evil, the killing of 20 children would be much less likely to be noticed by historians of the time than the slaughter of thousands as later traditions speculated.

In response to the post, Peter Kirby asked a few questions. He has patiently waited my response, continuously delayed by work, family, and the completion of my Acts article. Two of the questions had to do with how the amount of 20 was determined. Others with the omission of the account by Luke and the reliability of the tradition recounted by Macrobius. Peter also mentioned that there were other reasons to doubt the story's historicity beyond just the silence of other sources. I h…

[Introductory note from Jason Pratt: the previous entry in this series of posts can be found here. The first entry can be found here.]

Having explained why, as a Christian, I do not hold to what many people (Christian and sceptic) have considered the 'party line' that reason and faith are mutually exclusive, I will now explore this issue from a deeper philosophical perspective.

A Christian (or other religious theist) who accepts a faith/reason disparity will usually do so for religious reasons. His argument that these two aspects must be mutually exclusive (or at least need not have anything to do with each other) will be grounded on positions and presumptions which usually proceed from a devout loyalty to God's status, or from authority of specifically religious leaders, or from the structure of religious ritual, or some combination thereof.

And a sceptic who accepts a faith/reason disparity might do so only because, as far as he can tell, his opposition has chosen that grou…

Lately, I have been listening to a series of lectures by Hubert Dreyfus, Ph.D., a Philosophy professor at U.C. Berekley, concerning the writings of Soren Kierkegaard. The lecture has been very interesting, and while I think that Professor Dreyfus has some questionable interpretations of the Bible, his discussions have given me a greater understanding of Kierkegaard's view of faith. Most importantly, it has helped me clarify in my own mind the use of the illustration of a Knight of Faith and the example of Abraham and Isaac.

The Two Knights of Kierkegaard

Kierkegaard, the great Danish philosopher of the 19th Century, can be considered the father of modern existentialism. In his work Fear and Trembling, he wrote about the difference between two types of people whom he called the Knight of Infinite Resignation and the Knight of Faith. In Fear and Trembling, , Kierkegaard identifies Abraham as a Knight of Faith. In his lectures, however, I get the sense that Professor Dreyfus, who I ac…

It is understandable that naturalistic thinkers are uneasy with the concept of miracles. So should we all be watchful not to believe too quickly because its easy to get caught up in private reasons and ignore reason itself. Thus has more than one intelligent person been taken by both scams and honest mistakes. By the the same token it is equally a danger that one will remain too long in the skeptical place and become overly committed to doubting everything. From that position the circular reasoning of the naturalist seems so reasonable. There’s never been any proof of miracles before so we can’t accept that there is any now. But that’s only because we keep making the same assumption and thus have always dismissed the evidence that was valid. At this point most atheists will interject the ECREE issue (or ECREP—extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, or “proof”). That would justify the notion of remaining skeptical about miracle evidence even when its good. The…

Money-hungry televangelists taking advantage of the devotion of the poor? Pedophile priests taking advantage of the young? The apocalypse industry? Its syndication in the tabloids? Another big-name preacher succumbs to sexual temptation or to egotism? Christian factions involved in name-calling melee? In-house church politics alienating God-loving members?

Even if they sound familiar, I suspect that none of those will become the next big church scandal. I think there are two huge scandals that we do not see clearly enough. First, that we are not tending our own houses well enough to stop many of these others before they become scandals. We see them coming; where is our outcry? Second, we are not living lives of such active mercy and compassion as to completely dwarf the scandals in comparison.

Wait, but aren't there Christians living lives of mercy and compassion? Sure, and there many of them. Are they notable? Sure, all of them. I don…

The manger in which Jesus was laid has colored our imagery of Christmas. A manger, "[i]s a feeding-trough, crib, or open box in a stable designed to hold fodder for livestock.” Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, page 674. Usually, we associate the manger with the animals in the story of Christmas or with Jesus’ perceived poverty. I have several nativity sets which include the manger, along with barn animals. Although I am a nativity set enthusiast, there is a much deeper meaning in the manger.

The manger is mentioned three times in Luke 2. Mary lays Jesus in the manger, the angels tell the shepherds that they will find the Savior by seeking the baby lying in a manger, and then the shepherds in fact find Jesus lying in a manger. Obviously, the repetitive references to the manger are indicative of its significance in Luke’s narrative. As Bible scholar N.T. Wright comments:

[I]t was the feeding-trough, appropriately enough, which was the sign to the shepherds. It told them whic…

I have always contended that the primary reason to believe in Christianity is because its true. I have said in prior blogposts that if Christianity were false, we should abandon it. Why? Because Christians, who are followers of the one who identified himself as "the way, and the truth and the life" (John 14:6), should be dedicated to the truth above everything else.

Frank Turek, proud purveyor of Cross-Examined, has posted a video entitled "One Question You Should Always Ask an Unbeliever." It is pretty insightful, and the question that should always be asked really does get to the heart of the earnestness of the unbelievers in their views.

If

If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian? It's a pretty straightforward question. The straightforward answer should be either yes or no. In a sane world, I would expect almost anyone answering the question in an equally straightforward manner would answer yes, but Turek points out that some of the people to…

﻿ During a recent discussion of the origin of
life on Facebook some atheist
friends challenged me to get up to speed on abiogenesis research and understand
that life has essentially been created by scientists in a laboratory. To prove
the point they directed me to an article at the Daily Mail, "Scientists Create Artificial Life."[1]Given that
scientists have created a living bacterium, they suggested, there remains no reason
for thinking that the creation of life requires the intervention of God. So I'm
supposed to think that the mystery of life's origin has been solved and any
suggestion otherwise invokes the "God of the gaps" fallacy. Now as mentioned on the Facebook thread, I had issues with all this, beginning with the article itself: 1.
The misleading headline. There's a huge difference between creating artificial
life from nothing but chemicals, as the headline implies, and reverse
engineering an existing bacterium to produce a "rebuilt" v…

Scholars frequently pronounce the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist as one of the firmest historical facts about Jesus’ life. See, e.g., James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Vol. I, pages 350 (“This is one of the most securely grounded facts in all the history of Jesus.”); Robert H. Stein, Mark, page 55 (“Jesus’s baptism by John is one of the most certain historical facts we possess concerning the life of Jesus.”). This post will focus on the account of Jesus’ baptism in Mark and a challenge to its historicity from Neil G. at Vridar. Here is the relevant passage.

John the Baptist appeared in the wilderness preaching a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins. And all the country of Judea was going out to him, and all the people of Jerusalem; and they were being baptized by him in the Jordan River, confessing their sins. John was clothed with camel's hair and wore a leather belt around his waist, and his diet was locusts and wild honey.

Who's Visiting Now

Comments Policy

This blog is open to comments by anyone interested provided: (1) the comments are civil, (2) they are on point, and (3) they do not represent efforts by the comment authors to steer readers to long posts on other websites. Additionally, the CADRE members and management reserve the right to call an end to discussions in the comments section for any reason or for no reason. Once the CADRE member has called the conversation, all further comments are subject to immediate deletion, and the individual commenting may be asked to leave. The members of the CADRE reserve the right to delete any posts that do not adhere to these policies without any further explanation.